I have made a clear case that it is. Especially in light of the correct view of Romans 10:9-10.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Exalting the view of man
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
I have made a clear case that it is. Especially in light of the correct view of Romans 10:9-10.
DrJamesAch
New Member
I think it foolish for anyone outside of Christ to proclaim one either lost or saved on the grounds of outside appearance only.
It is Christ who perceives the heart, and to whom will turn away some, saying, "Depart from me. I never new you."
James, you are really irritating, sometimes.
At the first that I quoted from you, you were correct - not only about Calvinistic thinking folks but any one who makes that sort of condemnation. We are not to make that kind of judgment of condemnation about anyone.
Then in the above quote - you really mess up.
You shift from a person knowing the condition of someone else to it being applied to them self.
Why do you do that?
Do you really think we are all that stupid to fall for that kind of bait and switch?
Here in Texas, one don't attempt to ride the neighbor's horse and claim it is their own without someone looking at the brand.
If your going to make a point about one not knowing they are saved or not, then don't attempt to cover it over by applying a blanket of knowing if someone else is saved or not.
[offensive remarks edited]
The point is Calvinists claim that Romans 9 is about individual salvation. In order to prove it is about individual salvation, they take that part of Romans 9 spoken by an INDIVIDUAL as evidence that Romans 9 is about individual salvation. Therefore if Romans 9 is about individual salvation BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF AN INDIVIDUAL-the "question" ('why hast thou made ME thus"), then obviously the INDIVIDUAL would have to have some inclination about his own election. DUH:thumbsup:. [personal attack edited]
Last edited by a moderator:
Romans 9 is not about individual salvation. It is about the sovereign choices of God.
saturneptune
New Member
Moderators, please move this to the new Calvinism section.
You're just smarting because you're on the receiving end of an apostolic smack down.As a Jew, I've never asked God why He blinded my kinsmen according to the flesh and opened the door for the Gentiles. Thus that ignorant comment about "why doth he find fault" has never applied
What is funny about that verse which is ALWAYS misquoted by Calvinists is that they will be the first to admit that WHO the elect are can not be known (or at least any HONEST Calvinist would admit that). So if a person does not know for sure if they are elect, then how could they possibly be asking God "why have you made me thus?". If their election is unknown, then they have nothing to question God about! Why would a person who doesn't even know he's damned, be asking God why he's damned?
But, contemplating the logical conclusions and implications of theological presuppositions has never been a Calvinist strong suit. If they really understand the implications of that verse according to their interpretation of Romans 9, they would see just how absurd that accusation is.
You can't escape it, the only reason you hate Calvinism is because you think it unjust, not because you think it unbiblical. It's the only reason any man hates Calvinism, and Paul has his response: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
Ever and anon the noncalvinist cries, Why doth He yet find fault?
What I find amusing is that Paul is assuming objections by his readers to what he is saying in Romans 9. Now, these assumed objections are precisely the same objections coming from the Arminian camp today:
A. We teach in unconditional election before birth not conditioned upon anything done after birth. We teach that God does not redemptively love every human being:
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
....13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.ASSUMED OBJECTION BY OBJECTOR is that makes God unjust:
14 ¶ What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
B. We teach God has mercy upon Whom He wills and it is not him that willeth or runneth but God that sheweth mercy and He hardeneth whom He will:
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy....Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
.
ASSUMED OBJECTION BY OBJECTOR is that this makes man a robot and so How can God blame man because man can only do what God wills:
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
The Arminians must ask themselves why is it that the very anticipated objections raised by Paul are their very own objections???
Secondly, would Arminians respond to these anticipated objections the way Paul responded? No! These responses are exactly how Calvinist respond
It is about the Individual and how He fits within God's sovereign purpose of salvation. BTW it is about individual JEWS and indvidual GENTILES (Rom. 9:24).
1. Every example is about indivdiuals
a. Abraham and Isaac
b. Sarah
c. Rebeckah
d. Jacob and Esau
e. Pharoah
2. The pronouns are singular in responses by Paul
a. "he"
b. "me"
c. "whom"
3. The subjects include Gentiles
a. Pharoah
b. "us...not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" - v. 24
Every anticpated objection by Paul is Arminian in character and every response is Calvinistic in character.
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
First, Paul is anticipating an objection by his readers who are all Christians BTW and who can know their election:
1 Thes. 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
Thus "O man" refers to his readers and their anticipated objection to what Paul is teaching.
Second, it is an INDIVIDUALIZED question "made ME" and it therefore it is INDIVIDUAL in nature.
Third, take note that every anticipated objection is exactly the objections YOU make against Calvinism.
Fourth, take note that every response to these objections are responses YOU would never make nor any Arminian would make but are EXACTLY responses that Calvinist make against YOUR kind of objections.
Fifth, every illustration is of INDIVDIUALS not one illustration about NATIONS
Sixth, note the singular pronouns ("he..whom...me")
Seventh, note it is not restricted to Jews only "but also of the Gentiles" - v. 24
Last edited by a moderator:
You wrote:
In response to my statement:
Could you please explain why you said I believe human involvement is essential, given my statement "God could complete the process regardless of what man does"?
You are either:
1. Grossly mischaracterizing my position. (Classic Calvinist tactic.)
2. Not reading what I've written, dismissing my position, and just plowing forward with memorized theological rote.
3. Suffering from a reading comprehension problem.
agedman said:
In response to my statement:
Could you please explain why you said I believe human involvement is essential, given my statement "God could complete the process regardless of what man does"?
You are either:
1. Grossly mischaracterizing my position. (Classic Calvinist tactic.)
2. Not reading what I've written, dismissing my position, and just plowing forward with memorized theological rote.
3. Suffering from a reading comprehension problem.
DrJamesAch
New Member
If there is any evidence at all for total inability, it's the inability for a Calvinist to understand the implications of what you just said.
If this passage is stated by a believer, and you just admitted that it is, then here's the implication:
A BELIEVER IS QUESTIONING GOD ABOUT WHY HE MADE HIM A CHRISTIAN.
Now if you can't see the absurdity in that, you've sniffed one too many rotten tulips.
Secondly, to limit singular pronouns to INDIVIDUAL references is equally absurd. How often did Jesus use a "singular pronoun" to refer to a NATION getting into the kingdom of heaven?
And it is NOT about individuals. Let me highlight every single portion of Romans 9 that shows just how much you overlook by reading your Calvinist thoelogy into this:
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
["And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." Genesis 25:23]
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
[" And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness." Malachi 1:3 SINCE WHEN DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE MOUNTAINS IN THEM???
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.
30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
I've never seen anyone on this board even hint at such. This is the BB, not TBN.
Regardless of whether you are given a special faith to respond or use the faith you were born with, a response is required of US.
DrJamesAch
New Member
The Gentiles inherited the SPIRITUAL promise of righteousness through faith from Abraham which came in Jesus Christ through the line of Judah.
HOWEVER, the reason there is a remnant WHICH IS ISRAEL ("Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:" Romans 9:27) is because there is a promise to Israel that has not been fulfilled and that was the birthright that came through Ephraim in Genesis 39.
"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's:" 1 Chronicles 5:1-2
The Gentiles are NOT part of the PHYSICAL INHERITANCE that comes to Israel through birthright from Ephraim. The Gentiles inherited the SPIRITUAL blessings that came through Abraham which was fulfilled in Christ. Every Calvinist, Amillennialist, Full Preterist, Covenant Theologian MISSES THIS POINT, and it has skewed their entire understanding of Romans 9-11. Common sense tells you when you get to Revelation 7, and those that are sealed, THE REMNANT, are 144,000 JEWS of the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL, that when Paul is talking about those who are ELECT and those who are of the GOSPEL, that REMNANT is not about any saved Jew OR Gentile in THIS TIME.
Romans 11:26-32 make it perfectly clear that there is a difference between the REMNANT ELECT and the GOSPEL. Every Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9-11 butchered to make it fit their man-made theology is a slap in the face to God's future plans in fulfillment to the promises yet to be obtained by Israel which is the entire context of Romans 9-11 which is based on ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: if the Jews rejected Christ, and the Gentiles are now partakers of the SPIRITUAL promises being GRAFT IN, then WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL???
"What about Israel?" is the theme throughout Romans 9-11, and yet not one single Calvinist commentator can answer that question, even though Paul LAID IT OUT right under their noses. Every Calvinist simply takes statements made by a hypothetical individual that is applying to NATIONS and turn it into an individualized salvation scheme, and rip out every single reference to the SEED of Isaac, and every reference about ISRAEL, and ignore the entire theme that Paul is talking about.
HOWEVER, the reason there is a remnant WHICH IS ISRAEL ("Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:" Romans 9:27) is because there is a promise to Israel that has not been fulfilled and that was the birthright that came through Ephraim in Genesis 39.
"Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's:" 1 Chronicles 5:1-2
The Gentiles are NOT part of the PHYSICAL INHERITANCE that comes to Israel through birthright from Ephraim. The Gentiles inherited the SPIRITUAL blessings that came through Abraham which was fulfilled in Christ. Every Calvinist, Amillennialist, Full Preterist, Covenant Theologian MISSES THIS POINT, and it has skewed their entire understanding of Romans 9-11. Common sense tells you when you get to Revelation 7, and those that are sealed, THE REMNANT, are 144,000 JEWS of the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL, that when Paul is talking about those who are ELECT and those who are of the GOSPEL, that REMNANT is not about any saved Jew OR Gentile in THIS TIME.
Romans 11:26-32 make it perfectly clear that there is a difference between the REMNANT ELECT and the GOSPEL. Every Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9-11 butchered to make it fit their man-made theology is a slap in the face to God's future plans in fulfillment to the promises yet to be obtained by Israel which is the entire context of Romans 9-11 which is based on ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: if the Jews rejected Christ, and the Gentiles are now partakers of the SPIRITUAL promises being GRAFT IN, then WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL???
"What about Israel?" is the theme throughout Romans 9-11, and yet not one single Calvinist commentator can answer that question, even though Paul LAID IT OUT right under their noses. Every Calvinist simply takes statements made by a hypothetical individual that is applying to NATIONS and turn it into an individualized salvation scheme, and rip out every single reference to the SEED of Isaac, and every reference about ISRAEL, and ignore the entire theme that Paul is talking about.
Last edited by a moderator:
Most certainly. We disagree over the "C" word, but we agree that a response is required.
You might want to teach that to agedman.
Inspector Javert
Active Member
The absurdity is YOU, as YOU illustrate the very type of believer who DOES respond exactly as anticipated by Paul. He is repudiating the Arminian Christian response to what he just said.
If I had cited singular pronouns ALONE you might have a point, but I did not cite them alone but every illustration is of individuals and NOT ONE ILLUSTRATION is given of a NATION! So you are just being intentionally biased in your evaluation of the pronouns.
DrJamesAch
New Member
So Paul is repudiating a CHRISTIAN for asking God WHY HE'S A CHRISTIAN?
"God, that is SO unjust that you elected me from an eternal damnation, I would have much rather just reigned in hell than served in heaven".
"Oh but who art thou O Christian to reply against God"
I think if any Calvinist takes an honest look at how they are interpreting this, they would change their view in a heartbeat, because to say this is a Christian that is questioning God about being made a Christian IS RIDICULOUS.
I am being intentionally biased FOR a PROPER interpretation of pronouns in CONTEXT of what Paul is using them for, and AGAINST someone who attempts to invent their own grammatical rules for every jot and tittle in the Bible. I just gave you a clear explanation from the entire chapter of Romans 9, with all the references to NATIONS, the quotes from Genesis about TWO NATIONS being in the womb of Rebekah from whence Paul quotes, and the NATION of Esau of whom Paul quotes and describes the MOUNTAINS in Esau, where this remnant shows up in Revelation, and you insist on holding to a dogmatic unbiblical view when the implications you make about this being individual salvation have proven to have an ABSURD implication (a believer complaining to God about being a believer), and the context is CLEARLY about Paul answering the question, WHAT ABOUT ISRAEL?
No! Read the context!
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?
Verse 18 make the Calivnist assertion
verse 19 is the Arminian Christian's response to verse 18
Verse 20 is the Calvinist response to verse 19.
Do I have break it down any further to help see what is obvious?
DrJamesAch
New Member
When I read "context" I don't start with a verse that proves my theology,and then call that the context, I start where the context actually STARTS. Paul is not making an argument for individual salvation by describing the lineage of Jacob and Abraham which is HOW THE CHAPTER STARTS. Calvinists never stop to ask WHY is Paul describing who are the children of promise and WHY is Paul giving such a long explanation about the difference of the SEEDS that came through Sarah, Rebekah, and Hagar. Paul quotes the story of Rebekah from Genesis 25 and this story is about TWO NATIONS. Paul is showing that a Jew does not inherit the SPIRITUAL promise just because he is from the blood of Jacob, nor does anyone else inherit the promises of Israel just because they are OF Jacob. Hagar's children were OF Jacob, but not all that are born OF JACOB are IN Jacob. Esau was born OF Isaac, but the SPIRITUAL promise went through JACOB, and the BIRTHRIGHT went through EPHRAIM.
This is why there is a difference between the kingdom of heaven, and the kingdom of God. God is not done with Israel AS A NATION because there is an unfulfilled promise of the birthright that was given through the line of Ephraim that is NOT TO BE RECKONED WITH THE GENEALOGY OF JUDAH FROM WHICH CHRIST CAME. This fact is why Calvinists DONT GET ROMANS 9-11, and why most Calvinists become amillennial-THEY HAVE TO in order to make Romans 9-11 about individual salvation.
So according to YOU, God is DONE WITH ISRAEL. Israel has NO FUTURE as a nation, and thus all the references made ALL THROUGH Romans 9-11 don't actually mean what they say. When Paul says "HATH GOD CAST AWAY HIS PEOPLE" and "His PEOPLE" are described as ISRAEL, NOT the church, but ISRAEL the NATION-
"I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." ROmans 11:2-
....Paul REALLY meant the church according to you, even though common sense and fifth grade reading comprehension would see that God can't possibly CAST AWAY the church, so this is an OBVIOUS reference to a NATION not a CHURCH.
If Paul was a Calvinist, then Paul would have advocated for murdering his detractors, sprinkling babies, advocated for an amillennial eschatology, and taught that the Holy Spirit was "spiritually present" in the sacraments.
And again, you continue to ignore the implication of your assertion that Paul is referencing a BELIEVER. First of all, I AM NOT AN ARMINIAN. I do not believe in much of what Arminius taught, and I believe in ETERNAL SECURITY which contemporary Arminianism DOES NOT. Secondly, you would have to say that all Arminians are NOT SAVED if you contend that Paul is answering an Arminian. If you are arguing that the Arminian here IS saved, then that goes right back to square one which is a question about the implications of your interpretation that you KEEP AVOIDING:
HOW IS A CHRISTIAN QUESTIONING GOD ABOUT BEING A CHRISTIAN?
I can see you and every other Calvinist are having an extremely difficult time trying to grasp that conundrum. If I know I am saved, and claim that I am elect, THEN WHY ON EARTH WOULD I BE QUESTIONING GOD ABOUT MY POSITIVE ELECTION??? That is ABSURD to the NTH degree. If you then try to back peddle by claiming this isn't about a question to God about election or salvation, then you eliminate your entire premise that passage is about individual salvation.
IF THIS PASSAGE IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL SALVATION, THEN YOU HAVE A BELIEVER, ELECT OF GOD, COMPLAINING TO GOD ABOUT BEING SAVED.
DEAL WITH IT, that's the logical ABSURD and RIDICULOUS implication of your theology.
Good post!
- Status